In this short dialogue between Ruth and Naomi, the first verb in the Hebrew text introduces a desire on the part of Ruth, and it is followed by a particle which is roughly equivalent to “please” in English. Naomi’s answer is in the form of an imperative which expresses permission. Compare Joüon, par. 114, n. On the deprecative interjection -naʾ, see par. 105. Semantically, no politeness seems to be involved in its use. In many receptor languages the most natural equivalents would be “May I go to the fields to glean…?” and “Yes, go, my daughter.” Since there is a question followed by a response, it is often useful to have for the first verb of speaking a term such as “ask” or “request”—for example, “Ruth asked Naomi”—followed by a term such as “answer” or “reply”—for example, “Naomi responded.”
The name Ruth at the beginning of verse 2 is followed immediately by the emphasis upon her being a Moabite, so that literally the text reads “Ruth the Moabitess.” However, it is by no means always necessary to repeat this identification, For the Syriac translator also, this repetition seems to be superfluous. In 2.21, where he also omits “Moabitess,” he is even joined by Septuagint and Vulgate. though perhaps in the Hebrew text the repetition does have emphasis and may be a none-too-subtle way by which the author keeps reminding the reader of Ruth’s foreign background. (See comment on 1.22.)
In a number of languages there may be no technical term for “gleaning,” which means gathering up the heads of grain which the harvest workers left behind by accident. In many societies such a practice is simply not economically profitable, while in other parts of the world such grain is left on the ground for animals to eat. It is, of course, always possible to describe gleaning as “gathering up the heads of grain which were left behind by the harvest workers,” and it may be useful, therefore, to refer to certain Old Testament passages in which gleaning is mentioned (Lev 19.9-10; 23.22; Deut 24.19-22). It may even be useful to introduce a footnote; for example, “According to the law of the Hebrews, strangers, widows, orphans, and other poor people had the right to collect the ears of grain which had fallen from the hands of the reapers and were left behind in the field.”
That the harvest workers leave states explicitly what is implied in the Hebrew text. However, the harvest workers may require some explanation in certain languages, possibly a descriptive phrase which will more precisely designate what these people were doing; for example, “those who were cutting the grain,” “those who were harvesting the grain,” or “those who were gathering in the grain from the fields.”
Someone who will let me work with him is literally in Hebrew “after him in whose eyes I shall find favor.” This involves a rather frequent Hebrew idiom which occurs again in verses 10 and 13—though in the latter instance it is used primarily to indicate gratitude. In verse 2, however, it primarily involves permission, and it is translated in the New English Bible as “behind anyone who will grant me that favor.”
Go ahead is an idiomatic way of saying in English “Proceed to do what you have suggested.” In some languages this may be translated as “Go and do it” or “Do that.”
The word daughter, as has been noted in other instances, may need to be translated as “my daughter-in-law.” In fact, in some languages other terms of respect may be required, as Wendland states:
Instead of replying “Go, my child,” to Ruth’s request, Naomi would have sounded more idiomatic in Chewa by saying, “Alright, mother.” The first word shows her agreement with the request, the appellation shows her respect for her daughter-in-law. The use of personal names is completely taboo in such face-to-face dialogues. Wendland, The Cultural Factor, page 172.
Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Ruth. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .